The Retreat
November 16, 2019, 10:29:28 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Retreat.

 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Are Rural Gays Happier Than City Gays?


Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Are Rural Gays Happier Than City Gays?  (Read 95 times)
Milo
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2478



« on: February 27, 2018, 08:14:51 am »

So I found this yesterday. Its actually from 2013.

Out where David and I live, I have encountered numerous men and women who are sexual minorities. There is even a guy in one of the organizations I sing with who started making the transition to female last year. I have also met two male/female couples (married) who I later found out have a reputation for being swingers, but that's another story.  These folks range from stereotypical queens and dykes to folks whose sexuality you would hardly notice.

Bucks County has long been a place that attracted people from both Philadelphia and New York City. So among the population, there are recent transplants (like me), descendants of transplants (like David), and people who's families have lived here for generations.

Out where we live, there is no "scene." From our house, I could drive 45 minutes one way and hit the gay bar in New Hope, or 45 minutes the other way and hit one of the gay bars in Allentown (I think there are 2) if I were so inclined. But for the most part, the sexual minorities in the area hang out at all the same bars as the straight people do. But more than that, we're engaged in the community in the same ways as straight people. We go to the car shows, the township days, the volunteer fireman's carnival, the local church fairs, etc. I think that makes us more tightly woven into our community. Because we are more tightly woven into our communities, we experience less homophobia, and enjoy more real-life equality. So I would say that on balance, we are happier out here in the country.

Are Rural Gays Happier Than City Gays? 
By J. Bryan Lowder
SEPT. 10 2013 4:39 PM

When he’s helping young queer people struggling in small-town America, advice columnist Dan Savage almost invariably tells them to study hard, save up, and get the hell out of Dodge as quickly as they reasonably can. It’s only in cities like New York, Seattle, Atlanta, or Chicago, Savage advises, that gay people can truly actualize themselves in a safe(r) environment rich with cultural support networks, not to mention potential romantic partners.

While many LGBT people (including me) would agree with the general wisdom of that notion, a new paper out in this month’s issue of the Journal of Homosexuality is pushing back, producing headlines something like “Country Queens May Be Happier than City Queens.” The study, produced by sociologists Chris Wienke and Gretchen J. Hill, draws on a set of self-reported measures of wellbeing from a sample group of 632 men and women who had responded to more expansive pre-existing surveys, and concludes that there is “little support for the premise that rural living is incompatible with the needs and wants of gay men and lesbians.” “Rural areas,” the study continues, “are no less conducive to gay people’s wellbeing, as reflected in self-reports of happiness, health, and work satisfaction, than are urban areas.”

As the authors point out, this finding could be seen as “good news” for those queer people who “can [not] or [do not] want to live in urban areas.” However, it could also be seen as premature, since, as Wienke and Hill themselves admit, the study is limited by its small sample size, dependence on self-reporting, and the use of “gay and lesbian” subjects who were identified as such by their reported sexual activity (i.e. not by self-identification). Still, this research is useful at least as a challenge to the city>country assumption that prevails in the gay community.

To be sure, there exist smaller towns and rural enclaves that are just as welcoming to gay people as Hell’s Kitchen (though I question the author’s use of Provincetown, Mass. as an example; last time I was there, it was more an outpost of Boston/New York than anything else), and that’s great for gays who prefer a slower lifestyle. Outside of those special spaces, however, I worry that isolation is a problem—it’s never fun to be the only gay in the village, right?

But what I find most interesting about this study, and the question in general, is the way it depends on rather unimaginative ideas about what “urban” and “rural” life is like—one stressful, the other peaceful, one striving and dynamic, the other connected and traditional. Visitors to New York often seem to think it’s all Times Square, all-the-time, when the reality is that many people carve out existences in the city that are actually (maybe excepting the subway at rush hour) about as placid as a field of South Carolina cotton in September. I know this is true, because I’ve lived in both worlds. Likewise, some small-town people I know party harder than I would ever dream of doing in New York.

The point is, gay people—like all people—have distinct personalities that will make them feel more at home in different environments, and they will in turn build lives in those environments that do not necessarily fit broad sociological stereotypes. I happen to think that urban life makes being gay mean more, but it also seems that the patrons of the little dirt-road gay bar in my Southern hometown are happy with the meaning they’re finding in life—and if that meaning is anywhere near as amazing as the drag I’ve caught there during my visits, the country queens are doing just fine.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/09/10/rural_gay_life_vs_urban_gay_life_is_one_better_than_the_other.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top
« Last Edit: February 27, 2018, 02:12:41 pm by Milo » Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy